Is this the "missing" link that proves evolution?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 65 discussions (202 posts)

60
countrywomenposted 15 years ago
To discredit evolution one of the common questions raised was the absence of the "missing" link and this scientific discovery may strengthen the theory of evolution.
reply report
1. 61
  trooper22posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What I find curious is how close that fossil resembles:
  
  http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt … p;ct=image
  
  If you add a few digits to the hands they are pretty close. Now consider the span of time separating these two creatures, and well, we may have some much older ancestors than the current theories point to.
  reply report
2. 68
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The image of this fossil does not look like any of my ancestors.
  
  The web site says "known as Darwinius masillae, the fossil of the lemur-like creature dubbed Ida shows it had opposable thumbs like humans".
  
  Here's an photo of a lemur's hand. Note the thumb.
  
  Photo from static.zsl.org
  
  The web site also says "Scientists say the cat-sized animal's hind legs offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright".
  
  But here's an photo of a lemur, which is a primate, not just standing upright but walking on it's hind legs.
  
  Photo from ekkoshish.com
  
  Sorry folks, back to the drawing board.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ida is a primate species that has both Ape and Lemar characteristics. Evolution does happen. Look at it this way. Humans are only grouped in with being primates because we share similar characteristics such as a thumb or our teeth.
  
  Humans are not monkeys or Apes or Lemar just like Ida is not a lemar, she is not a monkey and she is not an Ape.
  
  However a question that I do have is, if Ida is our common ancestor as it has been suggested, then were did Ida get her traits from?
  
  It seems it would have been two different species but when the Ida's of that time reproduced, some of the offspring took the dominate genes and produced Lemars which have not changed since then in any large degree, a lemar is a lemar.
  
  So again some things don't make a lot of sense, like a Lemar was an Ida which was a Lemar/monkey??? but a monkey is not a lemar even though we come from the same Ida species.
  
  So somewhere down the line, in our future of discovery it is likely that we will eventually find a human, a monkey a lemar and an Ape that produced offspring such as Ida.
  
  It will just take a lot of time or luck before it becomes discovered. Yet evolution does occur otherwise you wouldn't have an Ida.
  
  So were did Ida develop her characteristics from? From two other species of course.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty sure neither of them were Homo Adam or Homo Eve.
  
  Seeing as Homo is against the rules.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL!
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is still the possibility that Ida is an extinct species.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ah, okay, coming back, I get what you are saying now.
  
  Evolution is the process of devolution! LOL
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I've heard that somewhere before.
  reply report
3. 61
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hindu philosophy does believe in evolution , the soul when ready takes on another animal form.
  reply report
4. 59
  usmanali81posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Kindly get rid of this theory of evolution now, no evolutionist ever proved it in the past 200 years. Only one evolutionist MILLER tried but failed badly. Even Darwin confessed that his theory is not proved and has got several flaws.
  reply report
  60
  countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My friend maybe this link would help: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
  reply report
  60
  Pete Maidaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We would then also have to get rid of creationism since that also hasn't been proven.
  reply report
69
C.Ferreiraposted 15 years ago
This very well may be the missing link, but I think by now, that whole argument doesn't really work anyway.

There is so much evidence of the 'theory' of evolution that it really is no longer a theory but a fact of science.

Pretty amazing find to say the least though!
reply report
1. 60
  countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You would be surprised even now some consider the theory of evolution to be just another "theory" and "missing" link seems to be one of the most common talking points. Last year once even my neighbor who is an orthodox person raised about similar "holes" in theory of evolution. I guess eventually we will arrive at some of the answers if not most.
  reply report
  69
  C.Ferreiraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Science will reveal the truth. It is amazing to me that people deny evolution is real. I just don't know how people can stare into the face of fact and evidence and see nothing!
  reply report
  60
  countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And the converse sometimes happens where some people see "nothing" and claim to know "everything".
  reply report
  69
  C.Ferreiraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  tis quite true. knowing all...of something that can't be seen or proven.
  
  Its like saying this keyboard that I'm typing on doesn't produce letters on the screen!
  reply report
  79
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's all a matter of perspective, and the assumptions you start with.
  If you assume (accept) evolution as th cause of everything, that's what you will find evidence for.
  If you nassume God created everything, that's what you see evidence of. Quite4 simple realy!
  The hard bit is for one side to "see it from the other person's foint of view."
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, if you assume nothing - the evidence points to evolution. If you "assume" god - you will fight against that evidence. Simple really........
  reply report
  79
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As said by a true evolutionist. You actually re enforced my point. If you assume nothing, it only points to curiosity. Trying to satisfy that curiosity will then lead to a search for answers/explanations. It is only at this point that you explore "possible" explanations, and come to "forks" in the road. It is at this point you choose which road you follow.
  We chose different roads.
  I just happened to choose the right one!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No - I assume nothing. The evidence points to evolution. Sorry dj. Your irrational beliefs mean nothing. Oops.
  reply report
  79
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  A fossil is a piece of rock. It does not point! It is in the present, NOT the past! The observer of this rock asks questions of how it came to be in the shape it's in. Where he/she goes from there is an individuals imagination. (My assumption of "assumptions", is there is NO theory in place).
  I must be getting too deep for you.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not really dj. You are assuming something from absolutely nothing. It doesn't really get more shallow than that. Fossils - no imagination needed really.
  
  But you keep on pushing your BS - I mean "witnessing" the power of the WORD or whatever it is. I mean - really - sorry about the burning at the stakes and all, but we have moved on.
  
  Oh well........
  reply report
  79
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I forgive you. Though I did not blame you for all that burning etc.
  Moved on....yes we have. Not always for the better.
  Why do you call my experinences with God, and the Word of God BS?
  And in the same day accuse me of lying, and of being disrespectful? If we really have moved on, that should not be going on. Maybe I expect too much!
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  We are in the science forum and here you are pushing your irrational beliefs as evidence that evolution is all wrong. BS seems an appropriate tag.
  
  Let's just say I would have a lot more respect for your beliefs if they stayed in your head where they belonged.
  reply report
2. 61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, it's not a 'fact' of science. Science is not performed by consensus or legal fiat. It's still a theory, although the word theory is used differently in the area of science. It's not a 'guess' or 'hypothesis'. It's a framework or a structure used to explain a set of observations. What they don't tell you is that it's the only theory they have, so they will defend it relentlessly, even when it's falsified. A scientist who is also a naturalist must subscribe to evolution in spite of its' contradictions. They have nowhere else to go.
  reply report
39
getpaidtopostposted 15 years ago
Very interesting, This is what I believe in Evolution is the creator of mankind.
reply report
71
earnestshubposted 15 years ago
This does look like one missing link, but the chain has lots of weak and missing links, and I look forward to knowing more as science with the aid of better computing starts drilling down within DNA to discover more about our origins.
reply report
0
Onusonusposted 15 years ago
I wonder how they figure it is 47 million years old.
reply report
1. 79
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's stamped on the back.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ha!
  reply report
2. 69
  C.Ferreiraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  carbon dating...
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  carbon dating can only go back about 50K years and it only works on organic material.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Carbon dating only goes back 44,000 years before the earth was created? I never knew that.
  reply report
  83
  Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Then there is always radioisotope dating - that goes back for millions of years before the Earth was created.
  
  Unless, of course, it was put there to fool us
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Radiometric dating is based on suppositions that cannot be proven or disproven. The amount of daughter element in the original composition of the rock is always an assumption.
  reply report
  83
  Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  'Tis true - there is always a margin of error, but it depends upon whether you are trying to debate whether the Earth is billions of years old or a few thousand.
  
  Evolution is regarded as a fact, in the same that gravity is regarded as a fact i.e - it exists.
  
  The theory of 'how' it happens - a different matter, and there is certainly plenty of room for debate there.
  
  As yet, I have seen no evidence that convinces me that there is any other explanation for macro and micro evolution. Nothing has yet falsified it, so I remain unconvinced by creationism.
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You totally lost me there.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry.
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No worries. I've seen enough of your postings.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I imagine you have. It must be very frustrating for you. Really, really sorry this time.
  reply report
  55
  Hell N0posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Carbon dating? 47 million years? Better check your facts.
  reply report
61
trooper22posted 15 years ago
Radiological dating determines the depreciation in minerals over time.

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Radiological+dating
reply report
79
aka-djposted 15 years ago
Radiocarbon dating. An interesting topic. By no means conclusive, and not without it's problems. Here's a bit of reading with a different conclusion.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -the-bible
reply report
1. 55
  Hell N0posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not defending macro-evolution but there are more ways than radio-metric dating to show that the earth is at least over a 100,000 years old. That would be ring dating in Arctic ice sheets. The methods they have for the age of the earth (about 5 of them) all have the earth as being approximatelly 4.5 billion years old.
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancienti … scientists
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wow - you believers sho do be gettin' desprate. How do it feel to have you beliefs destroyed by evidence on a daily basis? Must suk huh? Oh well.
  reply report
  79
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Beliefs destroyed"? How do you figure that? My belief has not been destroyed.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh yes it has, sorry.
  reply report
  79
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  ??? ???
  I just checked, I still believe!
  Ahh, did it again.. . Yep, still a beiever..
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I know. This is where the "irrational " bit comes in. Even though your beliefs have been destroyed. You still believe. And it doesn't really matter what evidence is presented to you that we evolved - you will still believe we were created in our present form.
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' ...
  reply report
  79
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting position to take.
  Being a Bible scholar'n-all.
  reply report
61
trooper22posted 15 years ago
I think the words Genesis, and bible sort of remove any scientific credibility from that link. I don't think I'll waste my time. Thanks all the same.
reply report
1. 79
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yep. That's the attitude! VERY open minded of you.
  Shame though, you just might have learned something. Even if you disagree with the content. Like I said, the hard part is seeing it from the other person's perspective.
  Oh well. Fear I guess.
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sure...and you've really proven yourself to be open minded...
  reply report
  69
  C.Ferreiraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  DJ...I used to be a born again, devout christian. I know the ins and outs. It wasn't until I opened my eyes and realized that there is not a shred of evidence to support the so called word, that I regained my individuality.
  
  I can, and indeed have, seen both sides of this argument, and the only one that hold any truth is evolution. It is not longer a theory while, creationism is still just a THEORY. There is no proof that Jesus ever existed, there is no proof that God said "poof" and the world was created.
  
  There is however, physical evidence of evolution, of fossils, and as far as carbon dating is concerned....
  
  Scientists do not use something on a repetitive basis without it being proven. Carbon dating was once a hypothesis, which was then tested, and re-tested, and re-tested. Because it has proven over and over to be concrete in its findings, we know that we can use this method to figure out the age of bones that we find today.
  
  No matter how hard you try, and trust me, I used to try harder than a lot of people....you cannot discredit physical evidence. Until someone can show me some proof of creationism, I will stick with logic and reality.
  reply report
  61
  trooper22posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Nice spin. Religion is the product of fear. The fear of death and the hope for something more. I have made my peace, perhaps it is you that is still searching since you are so convinced that your way is the only way.
  reply report
60
FreshtoDeathposted 15 years ago
The idea of "proving" evolution is humorous. At this point I would probably consider it "proven beyond a reasonable doubt," but that still leaves room for new evidence.

In order to validate evolution as some sort of mechanistic law (which apparently is what people need in order to stop disputing it) we'd have to create a system independent from our own, and accurately predict evolutions before they happened. It's really not feasible given the (alleged) amount of time it takes for a mutation to become a normal characteristic of a species.

What I don't like about evolution as a theory is that it isn't falsifiable. The normal objections (such as the complexities of the human body) aren't really objections, they're just questions that we can't answer. Yet.
reply report
1. 0
  Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Was that a real answer, Fresh, or was that the B*llshit version, ?
  
  The case of evolution concerning canines is very interesting. Maybe you can highlight some of the (alleged) principles behind the short length of time it took for wolves to evolve into the many species of dogs we have at the present time. lol
  reply report
60
FreshtoDeathposted 15 years ago
I assume the question you're referring to is the question in the thread's title. If that's the case, then I suppose my answer isn't so clear: no, I don't think that link proves anything too relevant.

And your second paragraph highlights the horrid beauty of evolution! I don't have to explain anything, I just have to reassure you that an evolutionary answer awaits and we haven't found it yet .
reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
I really do not understand why people are so reluctant to accept the possibility of god using evolution to create man. After all, if God had told Moses all about genetics and the evolutionary process Genesis would have been incomprehensible to everyone until the twentieth century.

"Even the hairs on your head are numbered." This statement tends to agree with scientific knowledge about genetics.

Although an agnostic, I try to learn what I can about the Bible and how it relates to science. According to the Bible, we are supposed to use our talents to our best benefit. I would think common sense would qualify as a talent.
reply report
60
countrywomenposted 15 years ago
You folks are keeping this thread active. I actually studied in school about evolution and later in religious books(Hindu/Christian) books read about creation by God. During my teens I was trying to reconcile both views i.e., Maybe God created and then everything evolved. Then I started reading more and slowly started questioning whether even God exists. To date I neither confirm nor deny God. I guess I am not sure of anything but having read about some fossil proofs I started tilting towards believing in evolution to be the more satisfactory explanation about our existence. I am still learning and maybe in future some new evidence or fossil proofs are presented then I might re evaluate my views again. Now I don't know whether I am even making sense. It is time for me to start preparing for another long week ahead. Have a great week ahead guys.
reply report
1. 0
  Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi, CW... I am preparing for a similar long week, sigh.
  
  Concerning the above and evolution plus God--the two are not mutually exclusive, many feel!
  reply report
60
countrywomenposted 15 years ago
Lita- Well some people use logic that makes me further question my own logic in my own beliefs. I mean I was raised as a Hindu hence I do have some beliefs like Karma/Reincarnation(which may seem illogical to people with other beliefs in one life and redemption). But then when I feel that Christianity is ONE of the ways(and Jesus was ONE of the sons of "God") then I hear back that either you believe in Jesus to be the one and only or you don't believe in Jesus at all. Similarly for Islam also when I feel there were saints/prophets in the past and there will be similarly in the future also(Guru Nanak was born after Mohammed(PBUH) whom I consider also as a holy man or a Prophet) then also I am told either you believe him to be the last or you don't believe in Islam. I tend to think in my own ways which seems uncomfortable to some folks. For a while even I was confused when I visited all the pilgrimage places in India I felt some spiritual vibrations(more peaceful and good thoughts) but still I am not sure of the existence of God. And also my earlier education and further reading makes me believe that Evolution does have some scientific evidence which seems more likely possible explanation. Anyway now slowly I am able to accept that my views aren't abnormal(at least to me). I hope I will find my answers at least in this lifetime but till then I am not in a hurry to fill the void in my understanding by making assumptions to arrive at incomplete truth or false "certainty". I guess I will stop here. Oh, Yeah the long week has started.

Edit- Mohit, I am aware of reincarnation(which somewhat may answer individual consciousness evolution in Hindu philosophy) but that still doesn't answer core questions of how everything originated(Universe, Earth, Plants, Animals and so on).
reply report
1. 61
  mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  God knows :)According to science there was simple life forms in the beginning which evolved due to exploding stars leaving different particles in our atmosphere behind.These extra particles created more complex life forms.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
There are probably some people who still think the world is flat. I know some who still refuse to believe we have landed on the moon. This is nothing new, religion has always prevented technology from advancing at its fasted pace. As an agribusiness professional I have many opportunities to see the results of genetic advances in crops and livestock.

Although these advances are the result of human intervention, the same advances take place in nature but just at a slower pace. We are so successful at improving the quality of crops and livestock genetically that we produce far more food than we need in the U.S.

Words written by common men comprise most of the beliefs espoused by religious anti-evolutionary backers. I have found that many of these same people have no idea about how the Bible was put together or who actually decided which books to include or exclude. Very little of the Bible is "the word of God" but are actually the words of men claiming to know what God intended. Nothing new, this is true even today. Those drinking the "kool aid" were convinced they were right to the point of killing themselves and their children all because of narrow mindedness and ignorance.
reply report
1. 61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  These advances demonstrate human intelligence.
  reply report
2. 59
  usmanali81posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Randy,
  
  What you said about Bible is very right. Now regarding all religions denouncing science, no, not at all. I can tell you about one religion for sure which is ISLAM who promotes science. Look at the Muslim scientists' contributions when Europe was submerged in DARK AGES. This era of developmental science had been vanished away from science courses and developmed a picture of vaccum in science when Europe was in DARK. For details you can have a look at http://www.muslimheritage.com (DISCOVER THE 1000 YEARS OF MISSING HISTORY).
  
  Regarding flat earth, Islam is totally against it. Look at the following verse of Qur'an.
  
  The Holy Qur'an says in Surah Naziat, Ch. No. 79, Verse No. 30…. It says. ‘And thereafter, We have made the earth egg-shaped’.
  
  The Arabic word ‘Dahaha’ comes from root word ‘Duhya’, meaning an Egg-shape and it does not refer to any normal Egg. It specifically refers to the Egg of an Ostrich - and today we know that the world is not completely round like a ball- It is Geo Spherical. It is slightly flattened from the top and bulging from the centre - It is Geo Spherical. And if you analyze the shape of the Egg of an Ostrich - it too is Geo Spherical, slightly flattened from the top and bulging from the centre. So the Holy Qur'an describes the exact ‘geo spherical earth’ 1400 years ago.
  
  There is no fact of established science which is against Qur'an. Now regarding the theory of evolution, the fact of the matter is, it's still a theory not a fact. It is not proved despite spending our hard earned money being spoiled on this theory for 200 years.
  
  Finally, the Genetic Engineering you talked about does not prove EVOLUTION. So please do not misguide and STOP publicing this theory as Darwin himself made confessions that were later collected in the book Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, edited by his son, Francis Darwin. Most of the letters written by Darwin to close friends or eminent scientists of his time are full of his confessions regarding his theory to full of doubts. Indeed, Darwin even had no qualms about expressing his ignorance of the relevant subjects.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Randy correct me if I'm wrong but I have read that genetically modified crops do not reproduce, example no seeds. Do you not think that this is a very deceptive way of getting rid of the traditional way of collecting seeds for the next years as farmers have always done to end up totally relying on agribusiness?
  
  There are claims that genetically modified foods lack the essential elements to sustain us. Many countries around the world have refused to accept GM foods, I believe India is a prime example of this if I'm not mistaken. A lot of European countries don't want them either. In fact some African countries have refused GM foods from food aid NGOs. Most concerns about GM foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns. From what I have heard about genetically modified foods I think the practice should be ended.
  
  Putting the Dangers of Frankenstein Foods On The Table
  
  Sorry Randy, sounds like you are in a dieing industry.
  
  Farms subsidies were supposed to have been outlawed with NAFTA. So while Canada has been eliminating farms subsidies the US has been increasing them.
  reply report
60
Pete Maidaposted 15 years ago
No matter how strong a theory is, it is still a theory and people can try to shoot holes in it. If people start out with the conviction that a theory is wrong they will find something to snipe at.

If we are fair we still must call evolution a theory and if we are to be equally fair we must also call creationsim a theory.
reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
I fully agree with you Pete, a large part of our scientific knowledge began as a simple theories. Proving, or disproving, these theories has been the work of countless scholars over the course of centuries. Religious zealots seem to try very hard to disprove some scientific theories while offering no evidence pertaining to their own beliefs, whether it be creationism or other religious leanings.
reply report
1. 61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In science it's not necessary to present another theory when disproving a current theory.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently all that is necessary is a one line assertion that god exists.
  reply report
65
WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago
I confess, I didn't read any of the posts to this thread. I just *had* to put my 2 cents in.

Here is the missing link you are seeking. No need to search any further
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  65
  WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  haha thank you for taking it so well. I kinda felt bad after posting. It's all in good fun.
  
  And let's admit it, that wasn't the first "joke" written in this thread. I'd say the first joke was in the first post.
  
  Z I N G !
  reply report
  60
  countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well I started this thread after reading that article and I didn't mean this to be the ultimate proof of the "missing link"(whether there is one or not). Have a good day.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I can usually take a joke if it is meant as such. Although it looks like I will be needing to explain the meaning of the word "joke" as well.
  reply report
  65
  WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yes we should clarify the word joke. In both instances of my use of the term, I meant:
  A comment, thought or idea so far fetched that it couldn't possibly be true.
  
  How's that for opening a can of worms?
  reply report
  60
  countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  WC- Would you please care to elaborate? What according to you is "far fetched" and "couldn't possibly be true"?
  reply report
  65
  WeddingConsultantposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  evolution
  
  But that can of worms has already been opened! Many of my responses were pages 20-30ish...Enjoy browsing
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said.
  reply report
65
WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago
I'll say it for you: I am so rude. I know, I know.

I have to tell you though...posts about missing links (as well as disfunctional body parts are hard to resist. It's almost an automatic activation of my "teasing bone".

Mark: you know I love you!
reply report
60
homes88mposted 15 years ago
well, I'm still skeptical that a tiny little ape shows the full connection from apes to humans. Although, I agree that at this point you have to want to not believe in evolution to not believe in it. What I've never understood is why the really creationist people can't just go with god cretaed the world, then the apes evolved into people the first person was adam, enter bible.
reply report
1. 61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your skepticism is well founded. Homology does not infer morphology.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
These types of discussions are always eye-openers to some people and to others a reason to close their eyes even tighter. Thanks for starting this thread Countrywomen, I,for one, enjoy different reasoning by both sides of the debate.
reply report
1. 60
  countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for enjoying this thread. The point about "eyes" brings me to another similar one which says some people if they close there eyes in daylight and if they say it is dark(it is dark for them because they chose to close there eyes) but in general it is daylight. Btw it is a pleasure meeting you and now I am off to read your hubs.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
usmanali81,

Please do not interpret my comments to include all religions as retarding science. The Muslims seem to have had a more open minded approach to science than other sects. This goes for now extinct sects of other ancient peoples. The Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, and others studied the stars and planets and used their knowledge to retain power over the common people. Knowing when to plant and harvest crops gave their priests power over the common people. Of course, some of the priests used this knowledge to justify human sacrifices to assuage their gods and retain the power they possessed.

As far as proving the theory of evolution is concerned, I have never stated Darwin was completely right about every aspect of the theory. This can be true of any proposed theory. This does not mean the basic concepts proposed by Darwin are wrong.

Long before the first atomic bomb was produced the theory of splitting the atom existed. I certainly do not understand all of the facets of producing this weapon, but I know the theory was correct. The same can be said for the theory of evolution.

Just because we do not have the knowledge to understand things doesn't mean they do not exist. It is easy to deny truth if one refuses to open one's eyes. Do you understand everything about the computer you are using to post on this subject? This concept started out as theory as most important innovations do.

Do you deny every theory your religion disagrees with? Why is it not possible your god used evolution to create man over a long period of time? Can you know everything about how your god intended things to be? If so, you are the smartest person on this evolving planet.

I do not ask you to prove the theory of the Muslim religion. Yes, this is a theory too. There is far more evidence of evolution than of proof of the Muslim god. This goes for other religions too. As you can see, our own particular leanings influence what we want to believe as well as how hard we look for truth.
reply report
1. 59
  usmanali81posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Dear Randy,
  
  I only fixed you on relating Genetic Engineering with evolution. From your post it seemed that you are promoting the theory of evolution for no gains. Belive me their are some beings who get paid for promoting evolution. Muslims have got no objection in scientific advancments but spending money repeatidly on RUBBISH is totally against Human Rights. Why you are promoting this theory for more than 2 centuries, why???
  
  The theory of spliting atoms was not 200 years old rather it was proposed just a few years back from it's proven experiment. Similarly, the theory of BIG BANG became a fact just after proposing it and Hubble got the noble prize. The theory of BIG CRUNCH is still a theory but it's leading to several other beneficial discoveries and facts which made it important to work on and scientists are working on it. Good, very well, BUT
  
  Regarding, evolution, it gave no fruit to humanity even science. The point was that Darwin, even a never ending list of evolutionists are against this theory of evolution then why the media is giving it so much hype. The reason is that, it just promotes the several flavours of ISMs like HUMANISM, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, CAPITALISM, ATHEISM, ZIONISM and GLOBAL FREEMASONRY.
  
  Look at the text of the founding fathers of all the ISMs, they all praised Darwin in their words and misused his theory in their false beliefs, constantly imposed on humankind from the last 200 years. Even Darwin himself had severe doubts about his works yet they promoted it for their evil gains.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  You have got to be the most un-educated muslimist I have ever come across.
  
  There are some beings who get paid to promote evolution?
  
  I knew you guys were ignorant, but that takes the biscuit. I can't really decide between the guy who baptizes dead people or you.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
As a person fairly new to the site I do not know the ropes here yet. This goes for responding to comments on my hubs and for the correct way to contact other members. Please forgive me if respond in the wrong manner. It seems each writing site has different modes of conversing. My fault of course, my time is limited so I have procrastinated as far as reading all of the pertinent rules and regulations.

My posts are not intended to insult other peoples opinions as each of us have our own. I do enjoy a good debate with other people as both sides invariably learn something about the other person's mindset. So far I am enjoying this site.
reply report
65
WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago
Actually, page 36 was a good summation of my participation:

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/3586?page=36
reply report
1. 60
  countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  According to your summation "origin of life (which I believe builds upon the discussion of atheism)" which isn't completely accurate. In fact now even some of the Catholic authorities tend to be open towards evolution theory( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ … lic_Church ). There can be mutual coexistence. Btw thanks for the elaboration.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The catholics caved ages ago. Kind of difficult to hang on to this position when there is so much evidence in favor of evolution.
  
  WC (much as I love him) is of the opinion that all the geologists, scientists, biologists etc are sadly mistaken and the grand canyon was formed during the flood. At the same time, the dinosaurs were turned into oil by a process known as "rusting."
  
  We long ago agreed it was a fruitless conversation to continue and both agreed to ignore all the evidence as being "in dispute," because it does not agree with his literal interpretation of the bible.
  reply report
  68
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks countrywomen. This quote from the wikipedia you posted pretty much sums up Catholic doctrine on creation.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
What about medical treatment Aka-dj? Surely you will refuse to get treated by doctors using scientific methods as a cure if you fall ill. I can't see someone with such mistrust in science using medicines or other technology based on theories in a life or death situation.
reply report
1. 79
  aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Medicine and theory of evolution are two different issues. I treat them so. The body has the ability to heal.Medical science intervens to assist that process. NP. Can you imagine if that weren't the case.You have surgery,and the wound never heals. The doctors don't do that, the body does.
  I would not refuse medical treatment, unless,perhaps, the odds were not right. Hope I never come to that though.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
So you trust science when it comes to your life, but not with your soul? Why do you think scientists would be wrong about evolution and correct about medicine? I'm sorry, this is hard to fathom.
reply report
1. 55
  Hell N0posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  First of all, I don't always trust the medical community involving their pattented drugs and all of their other crap. Yeah, we may take thier drugs and sprays to avoid disconfort but that doesn't mean they are good. In fact, I guarantee there are better and natural medicines out there that the FDA stifles. Now the mass media is on a crucade to make us paranoid about benefical home remedies. Why? Because they're chep. But medical science really has nothing to do with evolution and can actually be tested. We know that gifted surgeons are very important and it matters not whether that surgeon believes in the theory of evolution.
  reply report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  So HB, I assume you sometimes trust medial science and sometimes don't. How do you determine the best choice? I agree pharmaceutical manufacturers have a vested interest in pushing their products (something which used to have better control and testing) but again, how do YOU decide the proper decision?
  reply report
55
Hell N0posted 15 years ago
Randy, I can't tell you how many problems there are with that riciculous question.
reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
Why not give it a try, enlighten me if you will.
reply report
0
JimLowposted 15 years ago
Evolution is a theory that when there’s great desire to believe it, you’ll see evidence and proof of it everywhere. Studies of DNA, proteins and cells in general have been cited as proving evolutionary theory among other things and those very same studies are cited by other scientists as proof of intelligent design and of a direct creation that occurred. There is absolutely no possible way to observe evolution in-process if it were factual. It has never been observed and never will be. It is a process proposed to have occurred over billions of years and any cell studies observing changes in cells are because all cells make changes that can be instantaneous or progressive during its own life span, just like an animal or human being makes changes that also occur naturally during their lifetimes. If they didn’t do this they could not contain “life”. DNA for example contains huge amounts of information which points to intricate planning and purpose, more-so than to undirected, unplanned and even accidental DNA for living things.
Seeing evolution in the fossil record has innumerable problems, in fact so many problems that trying to prove evolutionary theory through fossils should have been discarded many years ago. They have certainly given it a tremendously ambitious try however. Paleontologists who have devoted their entire lifetimes to finding the ever elusive “missing links” have never achieved it. If you have been misled to believe there are only a few missing links, that if found would prove evolutionary theory, let me remind that 100s of millions or billions of years of evolution would produce incredibly large numbers of in-between “transitional” species and not a single one has yet been found. At this point evolutionists will absolutely scream, saying it is ludicrous to say fossil proof of evolution has not been found! They would add that the Ida fossil of a Lemur mammal species is one of those proofs and this is exactly the same thing that has been done with other supposed missing link finds. They will see transitional changes in very minor details of a fossil. In the case of Ida, the fossil is claimed to represent a transitional species because it is missing a “toilet claw” and “grooming teeth”. Of course this could also simply point to a species that never had these traits to begin with but then it could not be announced as a major find if this obvious possibility is recognized. The fact is that evolutionist-scientists themselves have argued about the interpretation on this fossil as they have on all others in the past. Why do they argue? Because there are those scientists who see proof around every corner and there are those who seek substantial, solid, indisputable proof. Past transitional species fossils have encountered the very same problems they contain such scant remnants of skeletal remains and point to such subtle changes that they can all be argued to not be transitional species representations at all. Some of the fossils were proven hoaxes, including “Archaeoraptor” that was proposed to be a transition between dinosaurs and birds. It was found that this fossil like that of “Piltdown man” (claimed ape-man species), had been tampered with (forged), by the gluing of two separate fossils together. The find is now referred to in some circles as “Piltdown Bird”.
The Nebraska Man fossil is another example of a fossil of a single-tooth announced with excitement to be a missing link from ape to man and later found to be that of an extinct pig. Some pre-human species were catalogued in the fossil record as having been determined by human footprints and tools. Some say these are simply examples of mistakes that have been made in the pursuit to prove evolutionary theory when in reality these were/are desperate attempts to produce proof of a theory evolutionists have an overwhelming desire to prove. For some of them, it comes from an all-encompassing, motive/desire to erase belief in God, intelligent design and direct creation from the minds of everyone possible because that would somehow further the cause of science. Add a great deal of wishful thinking into the mix and you have a better idea of where the announced gains in evolutionary theory come from. So far, only between 0.005% and 0.0005% of all species are represented in the catalogued fossil record and none that are proven to indisputably reveal transitional species.
Let me repeat that there should be an absolute HUGE number of transitional species found in fossils and not the huge jumps proposed to be represented for example in those that have been found to date, that are arguably fully-animal and not a pre-species of man. Some fossil finds completely cancelled out previous cataloged finds, such as those found at the cambrian fossil ferrous stratus level, that revealed an “explosion” of new species having appeared (Cambrian Explosion). This and also predating earlier fossils of lower species that were found previous to the cambrian ones.
There are 1000,s of scientists that do not believe the Theory of Evolution. Over 700 of them signed a petition in year-2008 to this effect that was offered by the Discover Institute, a group that includes many scientists in itself. Do not believe all statistics you read in regard to percentages of scientists who accept evolutionary theory because few inbiased surveys and unskewed by the manner conducted, that reach large numbers of scientists have been conducted to date.

QUOTE: “"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" (Charles Darwin – Father of Evoltionary Theory; from “On the Origin of the Species”)

The Theory of Evolution Proven? Not by a longshot.
reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
"There are 1000's of scientists who do not believe in evolution."

I notice you didn't state how many scientists do believe in the Theory of Evolution, Jim. And you are using the Discovery Institute to prove your argument? For anyone who hasn't heard of this "intelligent design" based group it is a conservative group intent on refuting scientific evidence of the evolutionary theory. Google the Discovery Institute and see how many prestigious scientists find this place a joke. I certainly hope you didn't get your information from these guys Jim
reply report
1. 61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Science is not performed by consensus.
  reply report
0
JimLowposted 15 years ago
Here's other statistics:

"A recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research finds that 60% of doctors reject Darwinism, saying that they do not think humans evolved through natural processes alone. Only 38% of the doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." The study also reported that 1/3 of all doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution." (other surveys of medical doctors reflect similar statistics)

"Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved."

This gives more cross-reference in addition to surveys of scientists. Of course when these type polls are done, interjected opinions always arise. The claims will be that those not accepting evolution are less educated or are all evangelicals, etc... This is simply part of the campaign that has always arisen when such large groups of people reject evolutionary theory. Half of Britons do not believe in evoltionary theory according to polls as well.

None of my earlier post other than the mention of the petition, came from Discovery Institute opinion. I've had these opinions for many years prior to even knowing about the Discovery Institute. There are other science groups that require a minumum of masters degree, with most holding doctorates that are involved in creation research, including the Association of Creation Research (over 600 scientist-members) and the Creation Research Society (over 500 scientist-members).
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Perhaps we should take a popular vote as to whether or not scientific theories are correct?
  
  Is the earth still flat?
  
  And if you are going to quote "statistics" it is probably a good idea to leave a link to the bible study science institute that complied them.
  
  60% of doctors reject Darwinism? Are these doctors against abortion or gay marriage as well by any chance?
  
  And you are really twisting this because the question posed was.
  
  "Do you believe god had a hand in evolution."
  
  60% think god controlled the process
  38% think there was no god involved
  2% did not know
  
  Therefore 98% of doctors think we evolved and were not created in our present form.
  reply report
2. 59
  usmanali81posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If humans evolved from monkeys then why the current monkeys of the world remaind as monkeys and unable to become evolved till now
  reply report
0
JimLowposted 15 years ago
Another major example of how the scientific community is often at odds:

“More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.”

This is cited for example purposes, the point being that large numbers of other scientists swear to the their very core that global warming is a proven fact and that all of their studies from many areas of science, using the most updated technology available have proven it as fact. There are in fact scientists who have stated that the progressive global warming proposed to now be taking place is no longer a belief but is as factual as the law of gravity (sound familiar?).

A large percentage of scientists surveyed in various recent polls also do not believe science holds all of the answers.

Surveys about scientists fabricating/falsifying research:
“On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."
In surveys that asked about the behaviour of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.”

Degreed Scientists in general represent a small percent of the population (estimated numbers range, one higher estimate being 1,000,000 scientists worldwide covering all fields –very small compared to general population) so when you look at all statistics combined those who accept evolutionary theory, are a minority in the U.S. and Britain for example, two of the most highly industrialized countries in the world.

The number of scientists actually, directly involved in research of the Theory of Evolution wiould be even smaller and a varietable drop-in-the-bucket compared to the scientific community as a whole and an absolute speck compared to the general population.
reply report
1. 59
  usmanali81posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  
  Dear JimLow,
  
  In 1859, Charles Darwin first published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In this book, which he described as a “long argument,” he sought to explain the origin of life in terms of evolutionary development.
  
  Throughout his book, he dealt with the subject matter very amateurishly, not based on any experiment, relying upon conjecture and hypothesis. Later, Darwin set out his ideas regarding human evolution at the same scientific level in his book The Descent of Man. Yet in both books, he admitted the weaknesses and inconsistencies in his theory and frequently reiterated his doubts concerning the truth of these hypotheses in question.
  
  The British physicist H.S. Lipson makes this comment about these fears of Darwin’s:
  
  On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled “Difficulties of the Theory,” for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen.
  
  H. S. Lipson, “A Physicist's View of Darwin's Theory,” Evolution Trends in Plants, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1988, p. 6.
  
  In addition, Darwin made similar confessions that were later collected in the book Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, edited by his son, Francis Darwin. Most of the letters written by Darwin to close friends or eminent scientists of his time are full of his confessions regarding his theory. Indeed, Darwin even had no qualms about expressing his ignorance of the relevant subjects.
  
  Yet even though the founder of this theory had strong doubts about its accuracy and his own level of scientific knowledge, and admitted as much in the very plainest language, today’s evolutionists still remain utterly convinced by his theory.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Stolen from this website:
  
  http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwini … ions01.php
  
  You really are getting desperate aren't you?
  
  And this christianist you are talking to is arguing against evolution.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
To Make Money- you are wrong about all GM crops being unable to reproduce because they have no seeds. BT cotton will reproduce just fine, but farmers are prohibited from keeping seed from a former crop because the seed is patented. There are ways to find out if someone does this with penalties being strictly applied.

I do not produce any GM crops and my cattle roam free over many acres of grass. People should be worried as heck about the farmer's situation in the U.S. The chemical companies are the one's getting rich as well as the seed suppliers. Most people do not understand how little the farmer actually makes on their crops. You know, this might make a good hub subject. And incidentally, most of the seed used by farmers are hybrid varieties, most will reproduce true. I know of no farmers in this area who saves seed for crops other than garden seed.

To Jim Low- I checked out the Louis Finkelstein report you cited. It seems 1472 "religious doctors" were asked about evolution versus intelligent design. Perhaps this isn't the same report because the numbers favor evolution over ID for jewish doctors and catholic doctors, but the protestant doctors chose ID.

The numbers of scientists you say form other creation groups are very small compared to the number favoring evolution. I guess you probably wouldn't have any polls from agnostic or atheist doctors handy, would you?
reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
Where do you get your poll information from Jim? And what denomination do you represent?
reply report
0
helenathegreatposted 15 years ago
Why does it always come down to religion versus science? This seems, to me, a very uninformed view to take. They are neither opposites nor mutually exclusive.

Anyway, I might have missed someone else saying this, but I just wanted to say that...

There really are no scientific facts. There are scientific "theories" that are generally accepted (see evolution, gravity, etc), but the scientific community that is doing its job remembers that these are still THEORIES. While a theory can be disproven, it can never be proven. That's just... kind of how science works. We don't have all knowledge so we can't know for sure that something is true.

(Seriously, though... The religion vs. science argument is, about 98% of the time, missing a major piece of understanding. I don't understand why the two sides seem to hate each other as much as they do. Some of us understand that they are two ways of taking in the same information, and generally they reinforce one another. But that's not the topic of this thread.)
reply report
1. 60
  countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well said, Helena. Believing in evolution needn't make someone disbelieve in God and believing in God needn't make someone disbelieve in evolution. I guess we can be objective about whatever evidences we gather instead of feeling one way or other. After all science did have mostly positive contribution to society (maybe except for nuclear bombs and some other negative things). In Indian philosophy there is a saying that says that "religion/spirituality helps conquer the inner "space" and science helps conquer the outer space". Both can coexist.
  reply report
79
cindyvineposted 15 years ago
Just get a little patience and wait until you die and then you can ask God how it all came about.
reply report
0
JimLowposted 15 years ago
The statistics I quoted are available on many sources. Some of the alternate statistics quoted back to me, are not from the same surveys. You also have to take into account that some of these surveys were conducted for several years consecutively and statistics varied some and questions were structured differently. If you want to see lots of the surveys I mention on a reliable source do a search for them on the Discovery Institute website. I've only been familiar with the institute for less than a month but have found that they have a lot of the info grouped from reputable sources on their site. The Discovery Institute by-the-way, is not viewed by scientists as a joke although it might be by laypersons. It is founded and staffed by professors and scientists who have the highest attainable degrees and credentials. See the list of staff at their site for confirmation of this.

While I'm at it, here's more info you can throw around, direct a few more witty remarks at or just add to your list of things to contemplate:

Lots of science based programs, school text books etc..., cite there being 65 million years of evolution. Why such a number of years? Because it's the only way the theory can be made to even remotely jive with what it proposes.
Can a fossil strata be formed in 100,000 years? I believe obviously it can. With this being the case, there should be 650,000 fossil ferrous stratas out there. Lets say it takes 1,000,000 years for a fossil strata to form. This would still calculate out to there being 65,000 of them.
Each strata using either number, all combined would require there being incredibly huge numbers of species changes. So many in fact that it would cause massive confusion in trying to catalog them.
Add to this incredible problem the proposed changes of species such as dinosaurs-to-birds that adds more complication to these factors and you have a theory with insermountable problems just from this one viewpoint alone. You apparently have very small animals in some cases evolving into extremely large ones and in other cases the reverse is true.
Mankind for example are propsed to have been in the pre-species stages of cells, worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, tree dweller mammals, many stages of apes transitioning to humans and eventually to modern man. Where are all of the 100s of thousands of subtle change fossils revealing the ape transition alone?
Some of the evolution charts of apes-to-men from only decades ago, show less than a dozen representations. They are all huge leaps of transitional species, which is difficult to jive when only subtle changes would happen in only a 100-thousand or a million years of the proposed 100,000,000 years or so it took for apes to evolve into mankind.
Why also can we look our ape ancestors in the face, alive and well at present time? Is it because apes and men had common ancestory? If so, the fossils of our branch that evolved should all still be out there. This also leaves the question that arises with evolutionary theory 1,000s of times from every possible angle, being "What causes evolution to decide these things?" In other words what decision making process causes it to say "I think I'll leave this branch of apes to remain as apes but this other branch, I'm going to evolve into modern man (for one thing, so that he can study me indepthly at some point)".
When you really "dig" into it and begin asking these common sense questions, the theory does not contain the logic it is propsed to contain. By scantly describing the theory in text books for example, it comes across as a well-proven, logical scientific theory. The fact is however, it contains endless unanswered questions.
What was my point in all this? Simply to point out that questioning evolutionary theory is not an outdated thing to do but is a perfectly legitimate and common sense thing to do.
Why do more scientists believe in evolution than do laypersons? The simple answer is because most scientists approach all questions from the pretext that science holds the answer to everything. It is in fact the very reason most become scentists. Saying belief in evolution by a majority of scientists, gives it more credence is simply not true.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  This is untrue. More scientists "believe" the evidence in front of their eyes because they are not fettered with the ridiculous notion that it must be incorrect because a bronze age book says so.
  
  The discovery institute is in no ways impartial, nor does it represent the scientific community in any way.
  
  Karl Giberson, Francis Collins’ colleague at Biologos. Giberson described the discovery institute as “slick, well-resourced, rhetorically clever, profoundly misleading, and almost completely devoid of any real science.”
  
  http://scienceandreligiontoday.blogspot … ience.html
  
  This is not science. Will never be science and is yet another example of why religion is a joke. The "statistics" you are quoting bear absolutely no relation to scientific study. Quite honestly - it does not matter how many people can be persuaded by religious indoctrination to think evolution does not happen. That will not change the facts. And you are going to have to do a lot better than this if you want to get into the anti-evolution hall of fame:
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/4393
  reply report
72
soni2006posted 15 years ago
I have written a hub on this missing link "Darwinius Masillae" Just google for "exaggerated emphasis" and the first link on google will take you to the hub I am talking about.
reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
I've often wondered how The Salem Witch Trials, The Spanish Inquisition, and other equally terrible religious murders,could have actually taken place.

In the case of The Salem Witch trials - The council was composed of pro Cotton Mather advocates predisposed to his ideas about witchcraft. Mather, who inherited his religion from his minister father, could boast a very good education for the time period. If you read about this tragic event, the ignorance exhibited by supposedly intelligent persons, the details of the execution of innocent people, and how the ordinary citizens protested against the executions, this will give you an idea how people with religious faith can ignore facts and push propaganda.

Citing statistics from the Discovery Institute and other ID sites actually makes your arguments even less believable Jim. I suspect if Cotton were still alive he would be posting on your side.
reply report
55
Hell N0posted 15 years ago
The Evolutionary Tree:

A theoretical tree with many braches representing groups of creatures with homologous features.

I was just thinking about when I would visit my uncle's farm as a child. One of the most humorous experiences I had was watching the chickens flutter from branch to branch until they were securely high enough to roost and avoid preditors. At that point, we would shake the tree and it would be raining chickens. Man were they pissed.

What do ya'll think would happen if this evolutionary tree were examined by way of DNA and other characteristics not known by the fossils of extinct animals represented in it? Yeah, I know that this is hypothetical and impossible to do. But what if??

I'll tell you what would happen. You'd have fossils falling out of it like those pissed off chickens flapping and flaling to the ground (man we were jerks). How many times have we heard of modern creatures with homologous features not being classified together? A marcipual wolf cannot be on the same branch as wolves. Why is it that a recent study found the Red Falcon more closely related to song birds than to eagles? Why is there a small rat looking creature more closely related to an elephant than to a. .. .well. . .a rat? A platapus? No relation to a duck (what if we only had the fossils?). Are lung fish considered transitional? I don't think so. I know the list would be huge.

And why is life not one giant confused transition? That's how it should be. Oh wait. I almost forgot about Punctuated Equilibrium. Transition took place in small groups with lots of incest and butt sex and other disgusting activities causing lots of mutations (not the butt sex. I just threw that in to be crass). So why when evolutionists find what they say is a transitional fossil. . . .they find a few more of the exact same thing? They would do better to destroy the extra copies.

How do creatures make those large jumps from one kind to another? Face it guys, real science would consider it ridiculous. Makes me want to almost agree with Kirk the Cameraman with his stupid crocoduck. Never mind, I can't stand that guy with his spiritual urin. But you know what I mean. Or maybe you don't.
reply report
1. 68
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Aw yeah we've all seen the crocoduck, haven't we Mark and Randy.
  
  The jackalope too.
  
  reply report
55
Hell N0posted 15 years ago
If I'm in pain I'll take whatever is in reach to get rid of it. If I'm dieing, I'll allow doctors to perform surgury and even use anesthetics. As far as prevention, I will rely on nature. If there is some deadly (and I mean, deadly) virus out there and they have found an immunization for it, I'll get it. But I always rely on science. Don't know what any of this has to do with macro evolution.
reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
This is a correction to an earlier post responding to Make Money.

I meant to say the seeds saved from hybridized crops will seldom reproduce true. They tend to regress to the plants used to develop crops with desired traits. You never know which traits the hybridized offspring will exhibit.
reply report
1. 68
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah I knew you were wrong in your other post Randy. A mule which is a cross between a horse and a jack ass can't reproduce either. Seeing GMs "seldom" reproduce too this is almost proof against evolution in itself. That's okay, most countries have freedom of religion and other faith beliefs, like evolution.
  
  The fact that hybridized crops "seldom" reproduce is rather beneficial for the agribusiness that sells genetically modified seeds isn't it. The agribusiness has an annual buyer from the farmers that start to use them, like a monopoly. Instead of the traditional way of saving seeds.
  
  The problem is that nobody wants genetically modified foods. If more people in North America knew we were being treated like guinea pigs in a laboratory with genetically modified foods they'd be pissed off. Those that do know want all genetically modified food products labeled so they can avoid them. If you do a Google search for 'petition to demand labeling for genetically modified foods' you'll find lots of sites. Here's one.
  
  Mandatory Food Labeling
  
  There's a pile of fights by farmers and food suppliers against these agribusiness'. Here's a bunch of them against just one company, Monsanto - farmers fight Monsanto
  
  The one good thing about it is that it is spurring the certified organically grown food industry.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
The debate is interesting, if not frustrating, at times.

I do wonder Hell No why you do not use spell check on your posts. I realize this may not seem important, and we all misspell words on our posts occasionally, but it is a simple matter to use spell check. Speaking only for myself, I would put more stock in your opinions if I were sure about what word you are attempting to spell. I do not mean to sound harsh, but if you take the same approach to proving your points on this thread it tends to make me wonder how accurate your findings are.

I hope this doesn't sound petty but has anyone else ever mentioned this to you?
reply report
0
JimLowposted 15 years ago
If you are offended by references to the Bible and belief in it, skip this post!

Since the ‘bronze age book” was brought up a few times by evolutionists in this discussion, I’ll add a few things in regard to it.

The Bible book of Genesis written about 1400 BC (by Moses during & after the Exodus) does not say WHEN the beginning of creation was but simply states that God was the creator and that he “created” it. The 6,000 years going back to the man Adam may be fairly accurate as arrived at by the attempts of genealogists but the “original creation” may have been eons ago. Even if it was, I do not believe in an evolutionary process of species evolving into higher species. I won’t go into the aspects of this area of the Bible but have done so in a number of past hubs. I’ll just mention that there was a flood-covered earth, with darkness covering it at the time of Adam being given the revived earth to have dominion over. If God had attempted to explain everything that transpired in earth history and pre-history or had explained all of creation process, starting with cell-structure etc…, mankind would not have even attempted to read or understand it. There is mention in the last chapter of John’s gospel that if even the things relating to Jesus were all covered in the Bible the world itself could not even contain the books that could be written. Over-emphasis can occur with any subject but where the Bible is concerned we have no more and no less revelation of God than he intended for us to have, if you believe it to be what it claims to be. It does cite existence itself as obvious proof of a creator but also points out that men ignore the obvious in exchange for building their own false realities.

The Bible is not a book that has ever claimed to be an “explanation” on anything. It refers to itself as a “revelation” of God to mankind. It is a historical record as well as one about spiritual relationship of man to God.

In my early 30s, I completed theological studies through Liberty University and one of my electives was Archaeology of the Bible. Archaeological digs have confirmed the Bible writings to be historically accurate and even the more difficult to substantiate, Old Testament references have all been substantiated, including things such as the original foundation of the Tower of Babel built about 5,500 years ago in the Mesopotamian plain of Iraq, where the city of Babylon stood for many years following. Among tablets found in the digs were the Sumerian ones that refer to the event of sudden confusion of the languages among the builders of the tower by the “Gods”. Other Babylonian tablets including the Epic of Gilgamesh refer to the great flood, which is also referred to in countries all over the world in ancient writings, the peoples of the different areas having never communicated or even having had awareness that the others existed.

I point out non-biblical writings because these add to its historical substantiation.

The New Testament is also highly substantiated, the Hebrews, who became the Jewish people/nation (Israel) that it deals with, as God’s avenue for reaching all other peoples of the world , are still in existence today, as are the tomb of Christ and his birth place. Many other writings from the period of Christ refer to the same events recorded in the Bible including those by Josephus who describes miracles performed by Jesus and the 900 Dead Sea scrolls that include writings from 200 BC to 70 AD that include complete copies of Old and New Testament books of the Bible.

These are just scant examples, the point being that the Bible is historically accurate. Despite this fact there is not even the remotest possibility that the supernatural events recorded in the Bible can be proven by anyone as factual. That’s where choice of faith comes in - to believe or not to believe. This includes whether one accepts Christ as being “God manifest in the flesh” and the Son of God who preexisted his life as a man on earth.

I didn’t plan to enter belief in the Bible into this discussion but others have brought it up so I’ve taken the opportunity to mention these few things. People logically look to spiritual purpose because we otherwise have little other purpose than to simply exist and subsist physically and there are no deeper meanings to life. Those who believe in God, recognize him not only as creator of things that exist but the sustainer of life and the one who has given it purpose. That’s why belief in God so often enters into discussions and debates on intelligent design VS evolutionary theory.
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  Seeing as your profile page says:
  
  And the last few hubs you have written are:
  
  DarwinFather-of-Evolution-had-Profound-Doubts-about-the-Theory-Part-II
  
  DarwinFather-of-Evolution-had-Profound-Doubts-about-the-Theory-PART-I
  
  Fossils-Indisputably-Revealing-Evolutionary-Theory--Where-are-they-PART-II
  
  Please excuse me if I accuse you of being full of shite.
  
  You are here to promote a biblical defence against a proven scientific theory. I understand that your beliefs have been proven to be false, but where does it say in the bible to lie to prove your point?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Alright, I mustered up the liquid courage to just say I think your commentary is hilarious but I still think you have no idea what your talking about and are full of biased shite yourself.
  
  But I think under goggles I like you so much more.
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In vino veritas.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Werd!
  reply report
0
JimLowposted 15 years ago
I struck a nerve that time didn't I Markus!? Coincidentally from you, the guy who brought the Bible into the discussion in the first place! What a surprise!

my quote: "I didn’t plan to enter belief in the Bible into THIS DISCUSSION"

I'm not the one who shows very obvious signs of being threatened by something you claim you see no substance of truth in (faith belief), you are!

Of course now will follow with the denial but you can't hide it - it's way too obvious. I'm secure enough in my convictions and beliefs, to not resort to your type posts.

I'll give you the same advice I've offered to others who seriously degrade in their commenting: Keep it at the higher level, leaving off the attacks and you can count on more respect and yes, even more believability in your comments.

The wit you think you've displayed in the attack comments leave much to be desired. What they really do is display a great deal of frustration on your part. Don't claim there's any frustration in my comments because you won't find any. I enjoy the discussion, even spirited ones but I'll never resort to the desperate attack techniques. Right now I'm finally responding to those you've directed at me repeatedly.

Re-read my advice above because it might help you to be taken more seriously, that is, if that's what you're hoping for.

Try it you'll like it!!
reply report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And my point - which you have obviously missed - is that the bible is the reason you are arguing against evolution and by publishing those hubs, and sharing your background - you have made it very clear that the bible is the reason you are prepared to argue against evolution.
  
  This level of desperate disingenuousness from you believers is quite shocking.
  
  I am very sorry that your irrational beliefs have been proven wrong, but making up pseudo-scientific arguments and pretending that your religious beliefs have nothing to do with why you choose to attack a valid scientific theory it is at best misleading, at worst - outright lies.
  reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
You know Jim, I just might have a job for you. I know you love to spread the word and there's this little church down here in
south Georgia in need of a minister. You seem to have strong faith so you could do well. The last preacher didn't believe strong enough it seems. You do know how to handle rattlesnakes don't you?
reply report
0
JimLowposted 15 years ago
I'll volunteer for the church if you'll volunteer as a case study for therapists who study guys who fail to follow through with intelligent discussion. You'd be a prime example of it, plus they could study your attempts at wit and try to determine why it fails so miserably.
Maybe some of the snakes they're handing at the church are your evolutionary ancestors and you could join them in being handled by the higher species at the church.
reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
You've got a deal Jim, as long as it isn't at one of the institutes that compiled the data you posted on here. If you like, I will send you the big canebrake rattler I caught this morning so you can practice up. Oh, and one more thing, I'm positive you know how to speak in tongues too. Don't ask me how I know.
reply report
0
JimLowposted 15 years ago
I see you didn't argue the fact that your ancestors are being handled by the higher species. That's good because denial can be a frustrating thing and you obviously have enough frustrations.
Yes I use my tongue to speak and just as an added lesson so you can learn yet a new fact, it doesn't work well trying to speak words with your ear or with your eyeballs.
It'll be okay Randy, just take some deep refreshing breaths, try to relax and you'll feel better in no time!
reply report
59
Randy Godwinposted 15 years ago
I feel wonderful Jim, laughter always has this effect on me. Especially the part about following through on intelligent discussions. The intelligent discussion ended when you started quoting stats from those goofy, ID institutes.

It's clear we won't get anywhere on this topic, so what do you think about inherited religion? You know, when someone takes the same religion their parents have because they aren't exposed to any other. What if one is born into the wrong religion? Will they go to hell?
reply report
0
JimLowposted 15 years ago
Randy,

You really need to start a new forum discussion on all these issues regarding religion that you are in need of answers for or opinions on. Or write a new Hub on these issues that will invite comments that might give you some things to go by in these areas. They will of course he opinions but that's what you are asking for and really all anyone can offer.

You've totally diverted this thread and I need to withdraw from it because it's against HubPages aministration policy to purposely divert thread discussions. This actually happened several times but managed to be directed back to the subject re: the Ida fossil & proofs of evolution.

Your discussion is too far removed but you're welcome to take the final word, at least where I'm concerned you can.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

12 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Is this the "missing" link that proves evolution?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Is this the "missing" link that proves evolution?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies